DURBAN
EXPECTATIONS
NECESSARY, AMBITIOUS AND ACHIEVABLE
STEPS FOR COP17/CMP7
“It always seems impossible, until it is done.”
Cancun was a modest success as it buried the ghost of the failure of Copenhagen. However, the Cancun Agreements postponed important issues that underpin the success, or otherwise, of eforts to ight catastrophic climate change.
The Cancun Agreements provide real opportuniies to advance global cooperaion in adaptaion, forests, climate inance and technology transfer. If all opportuniies outlined within the Cancun Agreements are grasped, and paries take the following thoughful and logical next steps, it is possible that COP17 in Durban could lay the groundwork for a fair, ambiious and legally binding global climate change regime. If this does not happen, if instead there is delay and lack of ambiion, then we risk losing the chance to keep global warming below 1.5oC and we
must face the catastrophic consequences for loss of life, economic growth and natural habitat. Without adequate miigaion, inance, technology and capacity building we will have to accept that poor communiies and countries who are already feeling the impacts of changing climate will have their homes and livelihoods destroyed.
This is why CAN believes that a compromised or low-ambiion outcome is not an opion for Durban, and why we set a high but achievable bar for COP 17. Paries can confront this historic challenge with new levels of solidarity and partnership and avert this pressing climate reality, by taking the following steps.
Close the gigatonne gap.
• In Durban, developed countries must agree targets in line with the Cancun Agreements, of at least 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, as a target loor and agree a process to increase their ambiion level to more than 40% for adopion by COP18/CMP8. This is part of their fair share to keep temperature increase below 2°C, and to keep open the pathway to stay below 1.5°C.
• In the lead up to Durban all developed countries must move to the high end of their current pledges
and show how their targets are consistent with
decarbonising their economies by 2050. Where their targets are less than 40% by 2020 they should indicate which other developed country should compensate for their low pledges by making higher cuts.
• Loopholes must be closed to ensure developed
countries honestly meet their emissions reducion
targets including:
- Land use, land use change and forestry rules that increase accountability and strengthen the level of ambiion of developed countries so that forestry and land use sectors deliver emissions reducions,
- Rules for any new market and non market mechanisms must not diminish already low levels of ambiion and must disallow double couning of emissions reducions and inancial lows,
- Agree rules to minimise damage from hot air (surplus AAUs) for example seing a discount factor or adjusing aggregate emission
reducion targets for all developed countries to compensate for the hot air.
• At Durban agree the rules for a registry that both links developing country miigaion acion with necessary support, and provides a separate record of developing country miigaion acions without support.
• The Durban COP must ensure that adequate, predictable and sustainable inance is available for REDD+ to deliver the substanial reducions required, in the range of $15 – 35 billion per year by 2020. The COP should also decide on guidance on reference levels, measuring, reporing and veriicaion of carbon, and informaion systems for safeguards based on recommendaions made by SBSTA this year. This guidance is necessary to maximise the efeciveness of REDD+ and inform current capacity building eforts.
• Governments should agree to quickly and strongly reduce the use of HFCs, in a close collaboraion between the UNFCCC and the Montreal Protocol, in order to immediately reduce emissions of these “super greenhouse gasses”.
• Governments must agree to peak emissions by 2015 and reduce global emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, within an equitable approach to sharing this efort.
Secure a second commitment period of the
Kyoto Protocol,
and thus preserve the only legallybinding instrument with emission reducion targets and imetables.
• KP architectural elements are crucial to ensure that miigaion commitments are legally binding and have environmental integrity.
Secure a mandate to negotiate a legally
binding instrument under the LCA
to beadopted no later than 2015 and in force by the end of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.
provisions of the Convenion, should be inscribed in legally binding instrument[s].1
Establish a negotiating pathway to deliver
adequate inance from 2013 to the new
Green Climate Fund.
• Agree a decision to mobilise adequate inance from 2013 onwards, including commitments to speciic sources of public inance in 2013-2015, and a Work Program on mobilising adequate public inance over the long term from a range of sources. This should include delivery of scaled-up budgetary contribuions from developed countries and supplementary innovaive sources of public inance such as mechanisms in the shipping and aviaion sector, a inancial transacion tax and use of Special Drawing Rights.
• Decide to develop mechanisms to reduce emissions from internaional transportaion (bunkers) in a way that can generate inance for developing countries while reducing emissions, and address common but difereniated responsibiliies by ensuring no net
incidence or burden on developing countries through
a rebate or other mechanism.
Advance and agree modaliies and guidelines for Naional
Adaptaion Plans (NAPs) which should be inclusive and integrate a country-driven, gender-sensiive, paricipatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideraion vulnerable groups, communiies and ecosystems, and be lexible to address naional circumstances, and ensure support will be delivered to implement NAPs.
Agree on further activities under the work
programme on loss and damage
and a clearmandate to work towards a decision at COP18, resuling in scaled-up acion on disaster risk reducion and risk management, establishment of an internaional climate risk insurance mechanism, and a rehabilitaion mechanism to deal with long-term climate loss and damage.
Establish adaptation, inance, technology
and capacity building institutions with sound
rules to ensure that they serve developing countries
needs and deliver real acion on the ground.• Take key poliical decisions in Durban on the nature and form of the Green Climate Fund, including the
appointment of the Board with arrangements for meaningful civil society paricipaion, establishment of themaic funding windows and access modaliies,
• Reach agreement by Durban on the funcions of the Standing Commitee, to ensure that the inancial mechanism of the Convenion operates efecively under the COP and to improve coordinaion between insituions involved in climate inance - inside and outside the UNFCCC,
• Establish a scoping exercise so that Durban can agree the structure, funcions, components, locaions and workplan for the Climate Technology Centre and Network,
• Establish an adequately resourced Capacity Building Coordinaing Body and mandate it to design a
dedicated ‘fast start’ capacity-building program,
• Agree modaliies and composiion for the Adaptaion Commitee, including meaningful observer access and paricipaion, so that it becomes operaional in 2012.
Build a robust Measurement, Reporting and
Veriication (MRV) framework.
• Adopt guidelines and imetables for biennial reports, which are criical for the 2013-2015 review and procedures for Internaional Assessment and Review (IAR) for developed countries and Internaional Consultaion and Analysis (ICA) for developing countries,
• Establish a common reporing form for inance, and ensure that the Kyoto Protocol MRV rules coninue
in the second commitment period and serve as
the basis for comparable provisions for developed country MRV under the Convenion,
• Establish provisions for public access and
paricipaion in all MRV processes, especially for IAR and ICA,
• Adopt guidance relaing to monitoring and
implementaion of REDD+ safeguards, and establish a comprehensive safeguard system for the Green Climate Fund.
1 These instruments could either be the Kyoto Protocol with a parallel new Protocol or a single Protocol building on the Kyoto architecture; the point is that commitments and acions are inscribed in a treaty instrument of some kind resuling in a comprehensive legally binding regime.
SHARED VISION
Long term global goal and peak year
Paries must agree, through a COP decision at Durban and ulimately in a legally binding agreement, that seing the long-term global goal and peaking year(s) must ensure consistency with an emissions pathway that keeps 1.5°C warming within reach while allowing for a very high probability of keeping warming well below 2°C over pre-industrial levels, mindful that total cumulaive emissions (the global carbon budget) are the central factor that deine expected warming levels.
Consequently, in Durban, Paries must collecively ensure that global emissions peak no later than 2015, as in the most ambiious of the IPCC AR4 scenarios. Developed countries shall peak their emissions before this date, while recognising that the ime frame for peaking will be longer in many developing countries and taking fully into account that low-carbon sustainable development is a prerequisite for poverty reducion and economic development.
In Durban, Paries shall agree as a long-term global goal to collecively reduce global emissions by at least 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels, ensuring that global
emissions coninue to decline thereater, and further ensuring that each country contributes its fair share to the required efort, recognising that providing inancial support and technology transfer is part of developed countries fair share. Greenhouse gas concentraions will need to be reduced ulimately to 350ppm CO2e, likely in the 22nd
century. The Review, with preparaions in 2011-2012, should include reviewing the long term goal and allocaion of efort in light of new science.
In Durban, Paries should recognise if their collecive and individual levels of ambiion expressed by current pledges are not consistent with the required emissions pathways to meet the temperature goals described above. To that
end, Paries should seek further understanding on the scale of the remaining gap. This should be accompanied by a renewed commitment to engage in a process to negoiate closing the gap.
Effort Sharing
The lack of an efort sharing agreement – an equitable approach to sharing the costs of miigaion and adaptaion amongst countries - is a major stumbling block to agreeing a long term global goal. CAN sees this as a gap within the current negoiaion agenda. Hencein Durban, Paries should agree that each country shall contribute its fair share to the global efort. Establishing each country’s fair share should be consistent with the principles of the Convenion, be determined on the basis of responsibility for historic emissions and capability for reducing
emissions, and ensure the right (and access) to sustainable development. Paries should also agree to increase
understanding of, and further agreement on, ways and opions for the allocaion of fair shares of the global efort, through a work programme, based on submissions, technical papers, and workshops, with a view to agree an equitable efort sharing approach, for conclusion and adopion by COP18.
REVIEW
Durban should agree a COP decision on the Review that includes detailed terms of reference, including scope and modaliies of the Review, building further on the Cancun agreements and taking fully into account the indings of the IPCC AR5 and its contribuing studies, and ensuring full civil society engagement. Paries should ensure that preparatory steps for the Review are undertaken in 2012 and that it is inalised no later than 2015.
As mandated by the Cancun Agreements, the Review should also assess overall progress to achieve the long-term goal. This should include an assessment of both domesic acions by developed and developing countries as well as the provision of support for miigaion acions in
developing countries.
The Review should also include an assessment of the gigatonne gap, i.e. the gap between emission levels
resuling from pledged or planned miigaion, and required
emission levels that are consistent with an emissions
pathway that keeps 1.5°C within reach and allows high probability for keeping warming below 2°C over pre-industrial levels. Guidelines for biennial reviews for both
developed and developing countries must be agreed in
Durban in order to facilitate the imely preparaion of these criical inputs into the review process.
In Durban, Paries should request a Technical Paper on the scieniic, technical and socio-economic issues relaing to temperature increase of 1.5°C, to be delivered in 2012, in
order to inform the review.
the review should include the above process suggesions, request the secretariat to organise the workshop and secure the inputs from the IPCC working groups.
ADAPTATION
Agree modaliies and composiion for theAdaptaion Commitee, including meaningful observer access and paricipaion, so that the Adaptaion Commitee becomes operaional in 2012.
• Members of the Commitee should be adaptaion and development experts and include non-governmental stakeholders such as civil society and research organisaions with relevant experise and experience. The commitee should have a gender-balanced composiion.
Agree a further phase of the Nairobi Work Programme that will facilitate the disseminaion of knowledge on impacts, vulnerability and adaptaion pracices reaching local levels of government, civil society and communiies.
Agree on further aciviies under the work programme on loss and damage and agree on a clear mandate to work
toward a decision at COP 18, resuling in:
• scaling-up of disaster risk reducion and risk management,
• establishment of an internaional climate risk insurance mechanism, and
• a rehabilitaion mechanism to deal with long-term climate loss & damage.
This decision should entail provisions for inancial arrangement acknowledging principles such as polluter’s pay and historic responsibility. Furthermore, the work programme should serve to galvanize immediate acion, should compile diferent experiences in understanding loss & damage and addressing each of its components. The work programme should also highlight the outlook of loss & damage vis-à-vis current ambiion in miigaion and adaptaion inance and the implicaions of failing to reach the ulimate objecive of the UNFCCC, and of Paries’ failure to meet their commitments under the UNFCCC and its Protocol.
Advance and potenially agree on the modaliies and guidelines for Naional Adaptaion Plans (NAPs) by Durban. These should follow an inclusive and integrated
country-driven, gender-sensiive, paricipatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideraion vulnerable groups, communiies and ecosystems. It must be lexible so that it takes into account naional circumstances and already exising strategies (e.g. NAPAs, and also
comprehensive climate change strategies addressing
adaptaion and miigaion). Furthermore, this process must
provide clearer guidance to developed countries to provide
inance for the development and implementaion of such plans and strategies.
Paries should use the call for submissions on the
modaliies and guidelines to consolidate their views as well as the workshops. Together with inputs to be developed by the Least Developed Countries Expert, this can provide a thorough basis for progress on this mater in Durban.
In Durban Paries should agree on a clear way forward to advance the role of regional centers, including a call for
submissions and a workshop to be programmed for 2012 on regional centres and their role, funcion and governance in supporing adaptaion work (including naional planning) in developing countries and at regional level,
In addiion, the following maters impinge directly on adaptaion and need to be agreed in Durban:
• ensure adequate treatment of adaptaion in Green
Climate Fund preparaion,
• ensure progress on public inance sources, including
innovaive inance, to underpin the adaptaion framework with suicient means of implementaion, ideally feeding directly into the Adaptaion Fund and the GCF.
Within the process going forward, we want to:
• ensure adequate treatment of climate change impacts and associated adaptaion needs and means of support in the modaliies of the overall review (modaliies to be worked out in 2011)
CLOSE THE GIGATONNE GAP
The Cancun Agreements set a long term goal to keep warming below 2o, but recognised that current ambiion
levels are inadequate, that deep cuts are required and that miigaion eforts must be ‘scaled-up’ -- with developed countries showing leadership. The Cancun Agreements failed to agree an equitable, top down science-based approach to seing miigaion targets, but they did urge developed countries (under both the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA) to increase the level of ambiion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while taking into account the quanitaive implicaions of the loopholes that exist such as the use of land use, land-use change and forestry aciviies, emissions trading and project-based mechanisms and the carry-over of units from the irst to the second commitment period.
The Cancun Agreements acknowledge that developed
countries ought to reduce their emissions in line with the
recommendaions from the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, which call for developed countries to collecively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40% below 1990 by 2020. This level of emission reducion is only 50% likely to keep warming below a 2-2.4o range, and is likely to
foreclose on keeping warming below 1.5o. No developed
country pledge is even close to its fair share in the globally needed miigaion efort. The recent UNFCCC Technical Paper (FCCC/TP/2011/1) shows that even the best case
scenario2at the top end of current pledges would lead to
no more than 18% reducion by developed countries, far away from both the 25-40% IPCC range and the more than 40% reducions required by developed countries as a group for a 1.5°C/2°C pathway.
Independent reports highlight the extent to which loopholes can further undermine already weak pledges. The UNEP Emissions Gap report pointed to an emissions gap of 12 gigatonne in 2020, partly arising from forest accouning rules that don’t accurately relect what the atmosphere sees and Assigned Amount Units (AAUs), or allowances, that countries want to carry-over from the irst to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Analysis by Ecofys and Climate Analyics found that current loopholes and underlying assumpions will signiicantly weaken the ambiion level of developed countries emission reducion targets to just 2% below 1990 levels.
At Panama, Paries should hold a workshop to consider ways to increase the levels of ambiion (following the yet-to-be-fulilled mandate within the Cancun Agreements). Paries must recognise that even in a best case scenario, there will sill be a big gap between pledges and emissions pathways consistent with 1.5°C/2°C. While each country should contribute its fair share of the globally needed
miigaion efort, most countries will have to move even beyond the high end of current pledges. For developing countries, this would also mean increasing understanding of required inancial, technological and capacity building support. Paries should share informaion on the potenial
for further reducions beyond their exising pledge and idenify the domesic and internaional condiions (cost, policies etc) to achieve them.
At the next session in Panama, Paries should request a Technical Paper that combines current pledges by developed and developing country Paries to assess the scale of the gigatonne gap between current pledges (and
their underlying assumpions) and emission levels needed to keep 1.5°C warming within reach and allowing for a high probability of meeing the 2°C target.
Developed country mitigation
Between now and Durban, developed countries must provide full clarity on what their net domesic emissions would be in 2020 resuling from current pledges and underlying assumpions such as exising or planned domesic policies, LULUCF accouning, AAU carry-over, the use of carbon ofsets etc. This is needed to understand what real domesic eforts countries are planning unil 2020. The Secretariat’s Technical Paper (FCCC/TP/2011/1) should be updated accordingly. Developed country Paries should also provide informaion how their pledges are consistent with near-zero decarbonisaion by 2050.
Developed country Paries must provide informaion to beter understand why their pledges fall short of the agreed ambiion level of 25-40% reducions and in some cases even below Kyoto CP1 targets. Developed country Paries with low ambiion should indicate which other developed country should compensate for their low pledges by making higher cuts instead.
By Durban at the latest, developed countries with high and low pledges or a pledge range must move to the high end of their pledges as a irst step. These countries must, between now and Durban, clarify (a) what the objecively measurable criteria are, against which condiions are measured; (b) what part of the condiions has been met so far and (c) what is needed to fulil the remaining condiions.
Between now and Durban, negoiaions on developed country eforts must build on the acknowledgement within the Cancun Agreements of the need to increase ambiion.
Developed countries must increase their pledges to more than 40% reducions by 20203 as part of their fair share
to provide a reasonable chance of staying below 2°C, and to keep open the pathway to stay below 1.5°C. In Durban, developed countries must agree to aggregate targets of at
2 Developed countries move to high end of pledges under strict rules and with loopholes closed, developing country taking ambiious supported and non-supported NAMAs.
least 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 as a target loor, and a process to increase their ambiion level to more than 40%, for adopion by COP18/CMP8.
By Durban, Paries must agree common accouning rules for developed countries and close/minimise loopholes
to ensure the environmental integrity of the system. This
would include:
(a) Rules on land use, land use change and forestry that
increase accountability and ensure that forestry and land use sectors deliver net emissions reducions. This requires, in paricular, using historical reference levels, rather than projected reference levels, for all developed countries. The rules would also have to account for all emissions, including other land uses such as cropland and grazing land management, and reweing and drainage. See separate secion below.
(b) Rules for any new market and non-market
mechanisms that ensure that such mechanisms not
diminish already low levels of ambiion, not distract
from decarbonising developed countries and must
not allow double couning, ensuring addiional emissions reducions and funding lows. See
separate secion below.
(c) Rules to minimise damage from hot air by e.g.
seing discount factors for surplus AAUs or higher aggregate emission reducion targets for developed countries to compensate for hot air, and strengthening some Paries’ 2020 pledges that are designed to bring in new hot air into the system.
In Durban, Paries should agree common templates, guidelines and review procedures for the Low Carbon Development Strategies4 for developed countries. The
2020 target resuling from developed countries’ pledges should be seen as a point on a long-term trajectory to near-complete decarbonisaion by developed countries by 2050, idenifying transformaion pathways and intermediate indicaive targets through 2030, 2040 and 2050, underpinned by and consistent with the rolling 5-year legally-binding QELROs under the UNFCCC system and policies and measures to achieve them, with plans updated every 5 years in line with most recent science. Developed countries should submit the irst iteraion of their Low Carbon Development Strategy or Plan5 by October 2012
and the irst report should be submited with the country’s sixth Naional Communicaion in 2014.
Land use change and forestry (LULUCF)
The land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector has the potenial to contribute signiicantly to the deep,
early cuts in emissions required to avoid dangerous climate warming. It is therefore essenial that emissions from this sector are accounted for in a way that relects what the atmosphere sees. However, a number of independent reports including the UNEP Emissions Gap report6 and analyses by
Ecofys and Climate Analyics7 have highlighted the role that
proposed lax accouning rules for the LULUCF sector could play in undermining the ambiion of a climate agreement.
As we move towards inal negoiaions in Durban, CAN therefore remains extremely concerned that paries are determining LULUCF rules in a way that encourages hiding emissions rather than taking responsibility for emissions in this sector. To address this, Paries should move to enhance ambiion in the LULUCF rules and, as highlighted in the Cancun
agreements, discussions on Annex I targets should also take into account the impact of loopholes including LULUCF.
In paricular:
• Paries must respond to the recent Review which provides technical clarity on the extent to which unaccounted emissions and a reducion in removals from managed forests decreases the ambiion of Paries’ emissions reducions targets. Paries should address this accouning gap of potenially hundreds of megatonnes of unaccounted emissions by ensuring that accouning for increases in net emissions
from forest management relaive to historical net emissions is mandatory for Annex I countries.
• Paries must acively invest in creaing the technical and administraive capacity to account for emissions and removals from cropland management, grazing land management, revegetaion and reweing and drainage so that accouning for these aciviies should become mandatory.
• Paries must move over the next year to signiicantly enhance data quality in LULUCF in order to enable Paries to take on comprehensive accouning for emissions from land as soon as pracicably possible. Resolving data quality issues could follow the “key categories” approach detailed in the IPCC Good Pracice Guidance for LULUCF.
• Paries must account for bioenergy / biofuels emissions by ensuring that all bioenergy emissions from domesic and imported feedstocks of wood and crops are included in LULUCF or the energy sector accouning. Under current guidance, these emissions are not accounted in the energy sector and many Paries’ reference level proposals also exclude emissions from forest-based biomass energy
4 As menioned in paragraph 65 of the decision listed in FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1 5 As outlined in paragraph 45 of 1/CP.16.
6 htp://www.unep.org/publicaions/ebooks/emissionsgapreport/
from accouning, meaning that substanial emissions from bioenergy could be ignored from the accounts of Annex 1 countries. Addiionally, the lack of a mandatory accouning requirement for cropland management allows Paries to omit emissions from crop-based bioenergy from their accounts.
• Only compliance risks from extraordinary natural disturbances should be factored out of LULUCF accouning – extraordinary being deined as staisically rare. In addiion, high quality spaially explicit data is essenial (i.e. Tier 3). Key safeguards
that must be included are ensuring that emissions
from salvage logging, land use change and future harvesing are not excluded. Paries should also be demonstraing eforts to control and rehabilitate afected areas.
Paries should seek to conclude negoiaions on LULUCF ahead of inal discussions on Annex 1 emissions reducions targets in order to ensure that the implicaions of LULUCF rules on targets are taken into account.
Developing country mitigation action
In Cancun it was agreed that developing country Paries take naionally appropriate miigaion acions (NAMAs) in the context of sustainable development that would be supported and enabled by climate inance, technology transfer and capacity building support with the aim of achieving a deviaion in emissions relaive to ‘business as usual’ emissions in 2020. Paries also decided to develop a registry to record miigaion acion seeking internaional support and to facilitaing the matching of acion and support. Developing country paries were encouraged to develop low-carbon development strategies or plans in the context of sustainable development.
By Durban, developing country Paries should provide clarity on their net domesic emissions in 2020 resuling from current pledges/NAMAs, including assumpions such as baseline projecions and underlying key factors such as energy use, economic growth, populaion trajectories etc.
Between now, Durban, and beyond, developing countries that have yet to submit pledges and/or NAMAs should do so as soon as possible. Developing countries that are
in a posiion to do so should further strengthen exising pledges/NAMAs.
By Durban, developing country Paries should provide clarity on what proporion of their pledges (and which NAMAs) they are planning to undertake unilaterally, and what proporion (or NAMAs) are dependent on the provision of inance, technology and capacity building support, and idenify the level and type of support
required to implement their pledged miigaion acions.
By Durban, Paries should aim to develop clear guidelines for NAMAs, and the underlying assumpions such as business as usual (BAU) projecions, to enhance the understanding of developing country acion, contribute to a robust assessment of the overall efort and environmental integrity of the combined efort of all Paries.
By Durban, Paries should agree a robust system of MRV for both acion and support (see below), coupled with a clear plan how inance, technology and capacity building support will be provided for the development and implementaion of NAMAs.
At Durban Paries must agree the design and modaliies for a registry that both links developing country miigaion acion with necessary support, and provides a separate record of developing country miigaion acions without support. Paries must agree to operaionalise the registry early in 2012. The registry should be developed as an integral part of the MRV system and also allow recogniion of early acion and matching enhanced acion with support.
At Durban, developing countries in a posiion to do so should agree to inscribe their NAMAs in the NAMA registry before COP18/CMP8 using common guidelines for imelines, baselines, expected emissions reducions, expected costs and indicate what support, if any, is required. Developing countries with low capacity may need more ime to inscribe their NAMAs, and must be enabled through inance and capacity building support to develop and register NAMAs, in the shortest possible imeframe in order to be able to take advantage of funding for NAMAs.
In both Panama and Durban, Paries should make progress on longer-term low-emission development strategies for developing countries8. This should be done with a
view to ensure a naionally appropriate, phased approach regarding scope and ambiion of such strategies, allowing for an increasing integraion of NAMAs into such strategies, based on naional circumstances and linked to available inancial, technological and capacity building support, for both the development and the implementaion of countries’ strategies. Developing countries with suicient insituional capacity should agree to produce low carbon development strategies before COP18/CMP8. Those with lower capacity may need more ime to provide the above informaion and must be enabled through inance and capacity building support.
REDD+
This year the COP needs to decide on a mechanism for REDD+
that delivers adequate, predictable and sustainable inance.
The Cancun Agreement also requires SBSTA to provide guidance on reference levels, measuring, reporing and veriicaion of carbon, and informaion systems for safeguards.
Ensure suficient inance
A host of mechanisms have been proposed for REDD+, ranging from market-based ones, through market-linked ones (for example, using money from emissions allowance aucions in developed countries) to straighforward funds. It is not clear which of these (or a combinaion of them) might be adopted although the levels of inance required are clear, being widely esimated to be in the range US$15 to 35 billion per year by 2020. This year the COP needs to decide on a mechanism for REDD+ that delivers adequate, predictable and sustainable inance at this scale.
Information systems for safeguards
Decision 1/CP.16 requests SBSTA to develop guidance by COP 17 on “a system for providing informaion on how the safeguards referred to in Annex I of the Cancun Agreement
LCA are being addressed and respected throughout the
implementaion…” of REDD+. A system for providing informaion, will play an important role in assuring that REDD+ safeguards are addressed and respected and can, thus, improve overall implementaion and efeciveness of REDD+. SBSTA guidance will be criical in ensuring the adequacy of these systems.
Measuring, reporting and veriication of carbon Emerging naional forest carbon measuring, monitoring, reporing, and verifying frameworks must provide transparency, consistency, and comparability of REDD+ results. Exising IPCC guidelines and good pracice guidance should form the basis of modaliies and methodologies for use in REDD+ frameworks. Some addiional guidance is necessary so that countries can begin to develop robust, transparent and comparable forest carbon frameworks. SBSTA should build on exising guidance and COP decisions to outline the range of approaches that can be used.
Reference levels
The Cancun agreement on REDD+ requires SBSTA to develop modaliies for seing reference levels. In general, any reference level chosen for REDD+ should meet at least three basic principles: increase transparency, lead to emission reducions and prevent leakage of those emissions. In paricular reference levels should:
• Contribute to the miigaion of climate change. REDD+ should permanently reduce emissions,
increase removals and conserve and enhance carbon
stocks (thereby avoiding emissions). Reference levels should be set within this framework, in accordance with the goal for REDD+ agreed in Cancun.
• Be based on naional historical baselines. Basing reference levels on naional historic baselines should be the basic staring point for establishing reference levels. This will help to ensure REDD+ contributes to miigaion. It is also consistent with previous UNFCCC decisions.
• Encourage maximum paricipaion. Broad paricipaion in REDD+ is required to maximise its miigaion potenial and minimise internaional leakage. It is also consistent with the second paragraph of the Cancun agreement on REDD+. Paricipaion by countries with high carbon stocks and low deforestaion rates is especially important in order to ensure that those stocks are not lost to the atmosphere.
• Be fully transparent. The UNFCCC must require
disclosure and transparency behind the reference levels approach for all paricipants. Values, calculaions, and assumpions for developing reference levels should involve in-county
consultaions with all stakeholders and should be posted freely and openly online, with suicient ime for comment, before reference emissions levels are accepted by the COP.
• Ensure consistency. Modaliies for seing reference levels should be common for all countries.
International transport
Governments should agree to work together to strongly reduce emissions from aviaion and shipping. The COP should develop strong guidelines, including an emission reducion target, and set a clear deadline for IMO and ICAO to create a framework for these sectors to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that at the same ime enable a fair contribuion of funding to miigaion and adaptaion in developing countries, and ensure no net incidence of impacts on developing countries.
Emissions from aviaion and mariime transport are not included in the Kyoto targets and current pledges do not cover these emissions. If a soluion to these emissions
remains unsolved and the sector grows under business
as usual, this will add another 6% to the emissions of industrialised countries, as compared with 19909.
HFCs
Governments should agree to quickly and strongly reduce the use of HFCs, in a close collaboraion between the UNFCCC and the Montreal Protocol, in order to immediately reduce emissions of these “super greenhouse gasses”.
FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS
The Cancun Agreements established two processes
to discuss “market-based” and “non-market-based” mechanisms respecively, scheduled to conclude in Durban. There are a number of ongoing processes that could either make progress in 2011 or could undermine the environmental efeciveness of the enire system.
Reform of existing mechanisms (CDM, JI and international emissions trading)
Despite the unclear future of the KP it is important to bear in mind that any decisions taken on the reform process of exising mechanisms can result in major impacts. For example, new standardized baselines in the CDM can afect the system’s ability to screen out non-addiional projects with potenial massive consequences for the Gigatonne Gap. On the other hand, a stringent discount-factor of
credits could contribute to net global emission reducions.
The issue of surplus AAUs needs to be solved this year. If not eliminated, surplus AAUs will further weaken the already low level of ambiion. Rules must be agreed at
Durban to minimise damage from hot air (surplus AAUs) for example seing a discount factor or adjusing aggregate emission reducion targets for all developed countries to compensate for the hot air.
Another issue of concern is the inclusion of new project types into the CDM. In CAN’s view, discussions about the future of the lexible mechanisms including the consideraion of new project aciviies should be irmly grounded in an analysis of their performance so far. The potenial inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and forests in exhausion (FIE) is highly likely to fail most of the requirements in this speciic ofset framework. Therefore CAN does not believe that including either CCS nor FiE in CDM is an appropriate way forward.
Key Principles for possible new mechanisms:
1. Raising the level of ambiion:First and foremost, discussions around lexible mechanisms must depend on the level of ambiion. Without an ambiious emission reducion target, there is no need for lexible mechanisms. Therefore, discussions must focus on how to move beyond zero-sum ofseing and must contribute to net global emission reducions.
2. Avoiding crediing business as usual reducions: Poorly designed mechanisms can cause double couning of emission reducion and overesimate emissions reducions and falsely give double meaning to inancial lows.
3. Avoiding double-couning of emission reducion and inancial lows: Possible future market-based mechanisms have to make sure that there is no double-couning of the units traded. While menioning several important principles, the text of
the Cancun Agreements is missing this important
item: the principle for avoiding double couning of emission reducion and inancial lows.
4. Safeguard environmental treaies, internaional obligaions and sustainable development, including human rights.
5. Departure from project-based mechanisms: Experience so far has shown that it is impossible to accurately assess the addiionality of emission reducions achieved by individual projects.
6. Geing the crediing threshold right in sectoral
approaches: CAN’s most serious concern lies in
the seing of the crediing/trading threshold. If this threshold is set too lenient, it would risk creaing even more “hot air” emissions ceriicates. The threshold has to be set substanially below conservaive BAU emissions projecions.
7. Supplementarity of emission reducions: To further
ensure that new mechanisms do not undermine
the environmental integrity of the UNFCCC regime, they must be supplementary to substanial domesic emission reducions in Annex I countries
8. Share of proceeds: CAN believes that a share of proceeds levy should be applied to the trade of all units generated by any new market-based mechanisms, set at a non-distorionary, but nevertheless efecive rate. Proceeds generated by this levy should low through the UNFCCC’s Green Climate Fund.
9. Supplementarity to internaional support: The
inancial lows, technology transfers and
capacity-building associated with tradable units generated
by any new mechanisms must also be supplemental to the inancing and technology promised by developed country paries to enable and support miigaion acions in developing countries pursuant to decision 1/CP.13 paragraph 1.b.ii10.
10. Low-hanging fruits: Any new market-based mechanisms must not lead to the deprivaion of negaive or low cost miigaion opportuniies (“low-hanging fruits”) of developing countries by crediing such acion for purchase by developed countries – such aciviies must be retained for developing country unilateral and MRV-supported domesic acion.
FINANCE
Sources of Finance for 2013-2020 and beyond
• The decision in Durban must include signiicant new and addiional budget contribuions for 2013 onwards according to an efort sharing framework.
It should also set out a clear and ambiious Work Program to operaionalise supplementary sources of long-term inance (which should include internaional transport - see below) and reach agreement on a further set of public sources needed to meet the inancing requirements for climate acion under the UNFCCC. A credible trajectory for scaling up public inance in the period 2013-2020 would build on fast-start commitments of $10 billion per year in 2010-2012, and increase by $10 billion each year, so that the commitment of $100 billion by 2020 is met predominately with public inance, and be able to leverage much greater amounts of private inance for miigaion acions. Revenue generaing measures to address emissions in the shipping and aviaion sectors, Financial Transacion Taxes and Special Drawing Rights, could help meet these goals and provide reliable sources of inancing for the Green Climate Fund.
• To achieve this outcome in Durban, a workstream on sources of public inance must start now, and involve submissions by Paries, workshops on inance in Panama and Durban, ministerial and expert meeings, and input from outside bodies, including the AGF, G20, civil society, and other insituions that can contribute relevant experise and knowledge.
• Adopt a decision on internaional transport under “Sectoral Approaches” that gives guidance to the IMO and ICAO on how to address CBDR and ensure no net incidence on developing countries, achieve appropriate miigaion ambiion, and generate inance for miigaion and adaptaion in developing countries.
• The decision in Durban should specify that:
- The mechanisms adopted for the mariime transport and aviaion sectors must generate signiicant inance for climate acion through the inancial mechanism of the UNFCCC;
- The principal of CBDR can be addressed through the use of the revenue generated, including
through a rebate mechanism to ensure no net
incidence on developing countries;
- Emissions reducion targets for these sectors are compaible with global emissions trajectories that ensure global temperature stabilizaion at less than 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels.
Green Climate Fund
The Transiional Commitee should conduct a transparent process that enables acive civil society paricipaion in all phases of its deliberaions, and produces recommendaions to the Conference of the Paries in Durban that will:
• Ensure that the governance of the Green Climate Fund and its secretariat are fully independent of any internaional inancial insituion or mulilateral development bank and, consistent with Aricle 11 of the UNFCCC as referenced in paragraph 102 of the Cancun Agreement, is under the guidance of and fully accountable to the UNFCCC.
• Ensure that dedicated funding windows are
established for speciic funding areas (eg: adaptaion, miigaion, REDD+, technology and/or capacity building). To reduce the imbalance between adaptaion and miigaion inance, an iniial share of 50% of the resources should be allocated to adaptaion. The appropriateness of these iniial arrangements should be kept under regular review.
• Ensure that the GCF plays a transformaive role in acceleraing the shit to low-carbon, climate resilient development pathways by (1) scaling-up resource lows for ambiious and efecive climate-related policies and acions, including through incenivising synergies between the GCF’s strategic objecives and the producion of other development co-beneits (while avoiding double-couning towards inance commitments), and (2) only supporing clean, safe, sustainable and eicient and non fossil fuel-based energy technologies.
• Ensure an environmental and social safeguards framework for appraisal and evaluaion that is consistent with exising internaional convenions and best pracice standards, and helps further the UNFCCC objecive of allowing economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
• Ensure that the Green Climate Fund guarantees the meaningful paricipaion of a diversity of civil society and community-level organisaions at the Board level and in naional decision-making processes, and at all stages from the development of proposals through monitoring and evaluaion.
• Ensure that socio-economic development and gender experise are represented throughout the Green Climate Fund structures (including, for example, the board, windows, and advisory groups) to ensure that funding is being equitably accessed by both women
and men and is reaching the most vulnerable persons
and communiies, including indigenous peoples, who most urgently need funding.
• Consider the relaionship of the GCF with other insituions and bodies under the UNFCCC.
Standing Committee:
• The AWG-LCA should form a working group to drat a terms of reference and framework documents to be approved by the Paries at COP17. The working group should elaborate the roles and funcions of the Standing Commitee, including the creaion of a registry, procedures to measure, report and verify inancial contribuions, and procedures to periodically assess the adequacy of available inance.
TECHNOLOGY
It is posiive that Cancun agreed to establish a Technology Mechanism consising of the Technology Execuive Commitee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN). The TEC should be the decision making body and will decide on the programmes and projects that will be carried under the climate technology cooperaion framework, and the CTCN will mostly work as an implemening body.
The future work of the Technology Mechanism needs to address access to climate friendly technologies and ensure that the technologies it promotes are socially and environmentally sustainable. The Paries need to discuss and strengthen the elements of the technology mechanism that will enhance the technology cooperaion and access to appropriate technologies. Unil now the Paries have not dealt with the contenious technology cooperaion issues which will ensure a robust framework is established within the UNFCCC. Now is the ime to take up the issues of reporing structure, transparency, accountability of the bodies, and develop a post Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) robust technology framework.
Issues that should be prioriized in the lead up to Durban:
• The structure for the CTCN and how the Climate Technology Centre(s) will coordinate with the Network. Establish the reporing lines of the TEC and the CTCN to ensure robust accountability and transparency in the process.
• Developing a set of key objecives for the CTCN. A preliminary list of tasks includes: capacity building, providing technical help for difusing and deploying technologies, support for country-driven regulatory policies (eg Feed in Tarifs FITs), technology
assessment, guidance for countries developing funding proposals to submit to the Green Fund. Overall, resources should be focused on illing gaps and not duplicaing eforts. The prioriies should be driven by developing country needs based on miigaion and adaptaion prioriies.
• Launch a scoping exercise for where the center(s) should be located and what exising and new insituions could paricipate in the network (could draw on the World Bank CIC scoping exercise). See if there are gaps in areas of technical experise that may require the creaion of new insituions. A separate inventory for miigaion-related and adaptaion-related insituions/experise should be conducted.
• Launch a scoping exercise for the scale of resources (funds, technical experise, human resources) needed to make this a robust, successful endeavour to help transiion countries to a low-carbon pathway while addressing their development and energy needs.
Durban should:
• Establish the reporing structure of CTCN to the TEC and the TEC directly to the COP.
• Deine how the Technology mechanism will be linked to the Finance mechanism.
• Address the lack of focus on adaptaion technologies, including through the Technology Mechanism focusing on developing funcional linkages to appropriate adaptaion bodies.
• Develop a clear picture of the scale of resources needed for the Technology Mechanism in order to make this a robust, successful endeavour to help transiion countries to a low-carbon pathway while addressing their development and energy needs.
• Nail down the structure, funcions, components and locaions of the Climate Technology Centre (CTC) and the Network.
• Detail the workplan for the CTCN.
• Select a CTCN host with a record that demonstrates choices consistent with equitable distribuion of resources, strongly promoing renewable energy sources and taking special care in safeguarding the
environment and public health with respect to new
technologies.
• Agree details of a MRV framework for the work of the Technology Mechanism.
for the same. Addiionally, paries should work towards creaing a one year High Level Commission on Climate Change, Technology Cooperaion and Intellectual Property Rights which should be mandated to examine if, when and how, speciic intellectual property standards and tools may be a barrier or enabler of technology innovaion and access. This commission should make recommendaions for adopion at COP18.
CAPACITY BUILDING
CAN believes that a new operaional framework for truly integrated, properly designed, new and addiional, cross-cuing and in-country capacity-building is urgently required from the LCA negoiaions.
Cancun failed to agree on any early-stage insituion-building for radically scaled-up capacity insituion-building. There is thus now an even more urgent need for Paries to concentrate throughout 2011 on co-operaively and collaboraively building a capacity building framework that can dock insituionally, and seamlessly, with emerging new architecture(s) for adaptaion, inance and technology.
In order for developing countries to successfully get on to low-emission development pathways they are currently likely to be expected to design, build and implement their Naional Adaptaion Plans of Acion (NAPAs), Naionally Appropriate Miigaion Acion (NAMAs), Technology Needs Assessment (TNAs) and MRV frameworks (including inventories and iduciary-standard reporing) more or less simultaneously.
Building in-country capacity for any one of these aciviies in isolaion from others is not only deeply ineicient in both the technical and organisaional sense, but also deeply cost ineicient.
Capacity building actions and needs
Capacity-building is required to assist developing countries to:
• Successfully prepare NAMAs and/or LCAPs; • Operate successfully within a direct access
framework;
• Successfully implement NAPAs (and/or operate within any new adaptaion framework);
• Maximise Technology Needs Assessment (TNAs) (and/ or operate within any new Tech framework);
• Operate and maintain MRV;
• Prepare and/or implement REDD and/or REDD+; • Build and prepare inventories;
• Fully operaionalise an efecive Designated Naional Authority (CDM).
CAN believes that capacity-building programmes should be based on a coordinated, cross-cuing, country-driven, botom-up, needs-based assessment, operated on a partnership-of-equals basis, subsequently delivered naionally, regionally and sub-naionally, as appropriate.
Operaionalising this posiion in the LCA negoiaions means that, as a minimum, CAN supports:
• A dedicated space in the negoiaions for
capacity building as a stand alone subject (i.e not “mainstreamed” as a minor sub-topic within the adaptaion, inance and technology negoiaions);
• Dedicated and focused negoiaions on the
establishment on an insituional basis of a Capacity Building Coordinaing Body (CBCB) by COP-17/CMP-7;
• The CBCB to be tasked with the design and build of a new programme for enhanced CB based on scaled-up, new and addiional capacity building funding delivered either through a mulilateral fund of its own, or as part of a muli-window new inancial mechanism;
• Support for capacity building in developing countries to become a legally-binding obligaion for Annex-2 Paries (with consequences for non-compliance).
CAN believes the CBCB’s main tasks should include:
• Operaional design of the insituional, administraive and legal arrangements for a dedicated capacity building window within the post-2012 architecture;
• Close co-operaion with transiional frameworks for future inance and technology insituions in the design of a capacity building window that is simultaneously cross-cuing and integrated, aimed at eicient delivery of resources, and capable of rapidly focusing and building in-country capacity to manage and deliver naional adaptaion, technology, REDD and miigaion resources and acions, aligned with developing countries’ own sustainable development objecives;
• Provision of clarity on the exact nature of a legally-binding commitment to capacity building as well as precise modaliies for MRV of support and results.
LEGAL
The Cancun Agreements did not make progress on the quesion of the legal form of the ulimate outcome of the negoiaions – however, they formalised the discussions on legal form that were begun in the second half of 2010. And they provide opportuniies to coninue discussions in 2011 with a view to agreeing a legally binding framework. As an iniial step we welcome the KP Chair’s ideniicaion of the urgency of acion in order to avoid a gap between commitment periods.
is no ime to negoiate a new approach without leaving a substanial, and environmentally devastaing, gap in binding commitments from developed countries – magnifying the already substanial gigatonne gap. To prevent this gap Kyoto Protocol paries must commit to a second commitment period at Durban.
The important architectural elements of the Kyoto Protocol include:
• Long-term viability: the KP provides a framework that can be updated for each commitment period, while maintaining its essenial elements.
• Top down approach, seing an overall objecive, an aggregate goal, for developed countries, allowing appropriate consideraion of the science and of equity (including the CBDR principle). Comparability of efort between developed countries is established through their respecive targets (Aricle 3.1).
• Legally binding, economy-wide, absolute emissions reducion targets for developed countries, expressed
as a percentage below the 1990 base year (Annex B).
• System of 5-year commitment periods, with
comparability of efort measured against a common 1990 base year (Aricles 3.1 and 3.7).
• Monitoring, review and internaional veriicaion system (Aricles, 5,7,8 and associated decisions).
• Compliance mechanism, composed of two tracks –
facilitaive and enforcement (Aricle 18).
• Mandatory review of provisions of the Protocol for
subsequent commitment periods (Aricle 3.9).
• Supplementarity of external acion (ie CDM) to domesic acions (Aricle 6.1d).
• Required reporing on ”demonstrable progress”
for developed countries, establishing an important reporing requirement and stocktaking (Aricle 3.2).
• Basket approach to GHGs, and the ability to list new gases and classes of gases (Annex A).
• Use of Global Warming Potenials (GWP) to allow comparability of the impacts of diferent gases on global warming (Aricle 5.3).
• Common accouning (scope, methodologies GWPs etc), common reporing, common sources etc - the things that allow comparability.
In addiion to securing the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, all Paries must agree on a mandate to negoiate a legally binding instrument covering all Bali
Building Blocks under the LCA. This instrument should be adopted no later than 2015 and enter into force by the end of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. A legally binding instrument is the highest form of commitment; given the urgency of climate change, the greatest level of commitment is needed from all paries regarding their respecive commitments and acions. By 2015 at the latest, the commitments and acions of all Paries, while respecing the principles of the Convenion, should be inscribed in legally binding instrument[s]. In the interim, all Annex I Kyoto Protocol Paries’ targets should be listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol, while their inance and other support commitments and the commitments or acions of all other Paries should be inscribed in respecive COP decisions. A robust MRV/IAR/ICA regime for miigaion and support under the Convenion, along with balanced progress on all Bali building blocks is needed to complement the system under the Kyoto Protocol, and is criical for this period.
MEASUREMENT, REPORTING AND
VERIFICATION (MRV)
• Progress on all MRV provisions is needed by Durban (COP17), with special emphasis on adoping
biennial reporing guidelines for developed and developing countries and modaliies for Internaional
Assessment and Review (IAR) and Internaional
Consultaion and Analysis (ICA). Paries must also make signiicant progress in updaing guidelines for Naional Communicaions and naional inventory arrangements. New or updated reporing, review, IAR and ICA guidelines should be completed no later than COP18.
• Paries should agree on imelines for the biennial reports with the objecive of informing the 2013-2015 review and the next iteraion of naional communicaions.
- Consistent with the imeline agreed by the COP for the 6th Naional Communicaions by Annex I paries, to be submited by 1 January 2014, Annex I paries should submit their irst biennial reports in October 2012 -- so they can inform COP18 and the 2013-2015 review process.
- A imetable for the next iteraion of NA1 Naional Communicaions must be agreed as well. Subject to capaciies and support, developing countries should submit their next naional communicaions in 2014 if the last one was submited in 2010. Biennial reports should be submited in accordance with the difereniated ime table.
that all reporing requirements for biennial reports should eventually become part of the guidelines for reporing through for Naional Communicaions, is criical for the successful compleion of the 2013-2015 review.
The increased frequency and rigor of reporing by developing countries will only be possible with adequate inancing and capacity building to support them in this endeavour. Streamlined and enhanced procedures for developing countries to access these resources could be agreed in Durban.
• The accouning and expert review rules embodied in Aricles 5, 7, and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol should coninue in the second commitment period of the Protocol and serve as the basis for a comparable agreement on developed country accouning guidelines and the review of reporing under the Convenion.
• Developed country accouning guidelines should be standardised and comprehensive.
• A common reporing format for inance is criical to help ensure comparable, consistent, accurate, and transparent reporing. Other elements that Paries should consider are: disincion of types of inancing, disincion of public and private inance, separaion of climate change funding within bilateral and mulilateral lows and in projects with muliple components; efeciveness of support provided, including indictors for efeciveness; and reporing on other support (capacity building and technology).
• Although standardized guidelines for MRV of developing country miigaion acions are criical, lexibility is needed in order to accommodate
diferent types of policies and capaciies of diferent countries. LDCs and SIDS should be allowed
signiicantly greater lexibility.
• Developing country emissions data in the GHG inventory should be reported in a transparent, consistent, and comparable manner with complete and accurate informaion, following the latest IPCC guidelines, and be submited with naional communicaions and, subject to capaciies and support, in biennial updates. Guidelines for developing country reporing in naional
communicaions and domesic MRV systems should be enhanced and developed, and must include provisions for support and technical assistance to build necessary capacity.
• Guidelines for domesic and internaional MRV of supported acions should take into account the safeguards and related monitoring processes developed under the REDD+ and GCF processes.
• ICA should facilitate a collaboraive review of biennial reports by independent technical expert panels, as well as have a capacity building role available to Paries for improvement of inventories and NAMA implementaion. The process should be open for public paricipaion.
• IAR should strengthen the review process under the Convenion, including of miigaion commitments and support obligaions, and should empower reviews to lag early warning signs of non-compliance; the process must allow meaningful public paricipaion throughout.
• Paries should provide guidance to the secretariat through a COP decision on the design and
development of the registry, including on the process for the facilitaion of acions with support, on how informaion should be submited to the registry, and the relaionship of the registry with the inancial mechanism.
• Enhancement of MRV processes for both developed
and developing countries should also include:
provisions for public access and paricipaion throughout the MRV process; guidance for reporing on Low Carbon Development Plans; requirements to report on fossil fuel subsidies; adaptaion-related reporing, in paricular with respect to local-level impacts; and informaion on how safeguards are being implemented.
• Guidance from SBSTA regarding the system of informaion sharing on the implementaion of REDD+ safeguards must be developed in ime for consideraion and adopion at COP17 in Durban. Because informaion on how REDD+ safeguards
are implemented is needed as soon as possible
during the fast start inance period, Paries must communicate relevant informaion as soon as guidance is adopted.
• In conjuncion with developing social and
environmental safeguards under the Green Climate Fund, Paries must develop a system for monitoring and reporing on implementaion of the safeguards.
Adaptaion:
Submission on Naional Adaptaion Plans, August 2011:
climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-submission-naional-adaptaion-plans-august-2011
Submission on work program on loss and damage, February 2011: climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-submission-work-program-loss-and-damage-february-2011
Submission on Adaptaion Commitee, February 2011:
climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-submission-adaptaion-commitee-february-2011
Views on the efeciveness of the Nairobi Work Programme,
July 2010:unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/smsn/ngo/188.pdf
Views regarding the terms of reference for the review of
the Adaptaion Fund, March 2010:unfccc.int/resource/
docs/2010/smsn/ngo/181.pdf
Miigaion – developed countries:
Miigaion Talking Points, June 2011: climatenetwork.org/ publicaion/miigaion-talking-points-bonn-june-2011
Developed country miigaion workshop presentaion, June 2011: climatenetwork.org/publicaion/miigaion-workshop-presentaion-bonn-june-9-2011
Observaions on current developed country miigaion pledges, April 2011: climatenetwork.org/publicaion/ observaions-current-developed-country-miigaion-pledges-can-presentaion-developed-cou
Lessons to be taken from the workshop on developed country QELROs, April 2011: climatenetwork.org/publicaion/ lessons-be-taken-workshop-developed-country-qelros
Miigaion – developing countries:
Presentaion at the developing country miigaion
workshop, June 2011: climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can- i-presentaion-developing-country-miigaion-workshop-bonn-2011
Observaions on NAMAs and pledges by developing countries: presentaion to miigaion workshop, April 2011: climatenetwork.org/publicaion/observaions- %0bnaionally-appropriate-miigaion-acions-and-pledges-developing-countries
Efort sharing:
CAN fair efort sharing discussion paper, June 2011:
climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-fair-efort-sharing-discussion-paper
LULUCF:
Bioenergy brieing: climatenetwork.org/publicaion/
LULUCF-brieing-bioenergy
Brief for negoiators, December 2010: climatenetwork.org/
publicaion/LULUCF-brieing-negoiators-cop-16
LULUCF presentaion, August 2010: climatenetwork.org/
publicaion/can-LULUCF-presentaion-bonn-iii
Closing the LULUCF loophole, June 2010: climatenetwork.
org/publicaion/closing-LULUCF-loophole-high-level-note-bonn-ii-2010
2011:
climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-internaional-leter-chairs-interim-redd-partnership
Finance:
Submission to the Transiional Commitee for the Green Climate Fund, August 2011: climatenetwork. org/publicaion/climate-acion-network-internaional-submission-transiional-commitee-green-climate-fun
CAN leter to global sustainability panel, February 2011:
climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-leter-global-sustainability-panel-february-2011
CAN posiion on scale and sources of inance, 2009:
climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-inance-posiion
CAN inance posiion paper principles for climate inance,
September 2009:
climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-principles-climate-inance-september-2009
Flexible mechanisms:
Submission on CDM Validaion Process, August 2011:
climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-submission-cdm-validaion-process-august-2011
HFC-23 abatement projects, June 2011: climatenetwork.
org/publicaion/can-posiion-paper-hfc-23-abatement-projects
Views on the CDM appeals procedure, June 2011:
climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-posiion-views-cdm-appeals-procedure
Views on carry over of Kyoto surplus of assigned amount
units (AAUs), June 2011: climatenetwork.org/publicaion/
can-posiion-views-carry-over-kyoto-surplus-assigned-amount-units-aaus
Views on enhancing the cost-efeciveness of, and
promoing, miigaion acions, Feb 2011: climatenetwork.
org/publicaion/can-submission-views-enhancing-cost-efeciveness-and-promoing-miigaion-acions-feb-2
Views on new market-based mechanisms, Feb 2011:
climatenetwork.org/publicaion/can-submission-views-new-market-based-mechanisms-feb-2011
CCS in the CDM, Feb 2011: climatenetwork.org/publicaion/
can-submission-ccs-cdm-feb-2011
Development of standardised baselines submission, August
2010: unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/smsn/ngo/194.pdf
Development of standardised baselines, March 2010:
unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/smsn/ngo/180a.pdf
CDM appeals procedure, April 2010: climatenetwork.org/
publicaion/can-submission-cdm-appeals-procedure
Possible improvements to emissions trading and the project
based mechanisms, March 2009: climatenetwork.org/
publicaion/can-posiion-possible-improvements-emissions-trading-and-project-based-mechanisms
MRV:
Submission on Measurement, reporing and veriicaion,
March 2011: climatenetwork.org/publicaion/
